The Ring- Art Horror, Art Dread or the Fantastic

According to Carroll, I believe that he would consider this movie to be classified under art horror. The reasons for this are that Carroll would say that the monster in this movie does not exist by science, is disgusting and fearsome, and is extremely threatning. For example, when the girl proves she is supernatural by coming through the screen, she is dripping wet, with extremely long hair and ripped off finger nails, that kills Aiden the father. Also Carroll explains horror films with a complex discovery, which this movie has as well. The onset of the movie is when we know from the begining what the monster is, its on the cover of the DVD. Then it has a clear discovery when the reporter and some of the friends of the victims figure out what is killing everyone. The confirmation stage is when the witness or believers try to convince others not to watch the movie. The confrontation is when the reporter trys to solve the issue by going in the well to try to uncover the monsters body. But that wasn't how she saved herself, it was the copying of the tape and then sharing it with others. Also, the girl being the monster, is an example of fusion (contradictary of the living and the dead).

Could Carroll believe by any means of this being of the fantastic? Well, what Carroll gives as a definition of the fantastic, I dont think so. He believes that it is an oscillation between naturalistic and supernatural explanations, horror requires that at some point attempts at ordinary scientific explanations be abandoned in favor of a supernatural explanation. I definitely do not believe that this would be considered a movie of the fantastic uncanny because it is not natural for someone to come back to life and sypher through television sets. I could see why some would consider it of the fantastic marvelous, because it does have supernatural characteristics, but the creature is pretty fearsome.

Schnieder, would say that parts of the movie would be considered art horror by his definition of it. Art horror to him is more concrete and specific, where you are looking at thing they arent ought to be. It is an instant scarred state, no action readiness. For example in the movie it is when the monster pops out of the screen or when the reporter is in the well and is grabbed by the dead monster.

Freeland, would say that this movie would be on the lines with Carroll considered horrific. She would also say that it is jam packed with art dread as well. This movie does leave the viewer with an overwelming vague feeling caused by watching the horror. Even though dread is like horror, it does not have to have that same aspect of disgust. For example when we know that it is the seventh and final day of the victims life, I experienced tremendous art dread, compared to the first day after watching the movie.

Overall, I would say that this a pretty good example of art-horror, dread and possibly even an example of the fantastic marvelous.

Classifying Horrifying "Non-Horror" Movies

After watching thirteen horror movies and clips from several others, I can say that I am no longer so frightened of them. For one, it is a lot easier to see the effects used and decide whether they are effective or not. For another, I can put to use some things that I have learned in the class and decide whether the movie is actually horrifying or not. (If I liked scary movies, I might be upset by this.) After watching some of these movies though and not being scared, I wondered why I was frightened by some things and not by others. What I mean is, why some things are more frightening than the technical "horror" movies.

Of course, I believe that the world has grown immune to some movies and effects that at one time were terrifying. For example, I cannot imagine someone over the age of ten today being afraid of The Bride of Frankenstein. There are things happening in the world today that are more horrifying than that movie - the Virginia Tech shooting, for instance. So actual monster movies are no longer having the effect that Noel Carroll talked about when he defined "horror." Instead, I think that movies that have a real person behaving in a monstrous way are more horrifying. Though slasher films are overly done and cheesy for the most part, these are frightening to me because there really are psychos that murder innocent people. The movie "Psycho" is scary because even if we look at Norman as a person and not an impure monster, there are people out there in today's world who have split personalities and do strange things because voices tell them to, or whatever.

Looking at movies that are not classified specifically as "horror" like the "Saw" series. "Saw" is classified as a thriller. But the events that take place are positively horrifying. The fact that some faceless killer went through the trouble that he did to force his victims to see the errors of their previous ways is horrible. The way the guy went about his victims, locking the two guys in a cell, chained to the wall with the option of cutting off his own foot... It is a psychological horror because the horror lies within the mind, the characters being stuck between two choices, both likely leading to eventual death. I can say that after watching this movie, I was up for several hours afterwards, unable to sleep. The way that the killer thought every move out perfectly and knew exactly what would happen, how his victims would react, and each move was perfectly synchronized was bone-chilling to me.

Another movie that I found horrifying in several scenes was "O," the newer movie based on Shakespeare's Othello. The movie wasn't so horrifying as the character of Iago. Iago frightened me because he is so incredibly intelligent about how people's minds work. He knew exactly what he needed to do and say to Desdemona and Othello to make them behave in his desired manner. It was his manipulation that enabled his to do this, the way he thought out his every action, allowing him to move the other characters around like chess pawns.

I think that what makes a movie so horrifying now is the premeditated actions of characters. Those characters that do not behave in jerky, radical, unexplainable ways, but those who plan everything, who patiently wait for their moves, their events to fall into place. This may be due to the events happening in the 20th and 21st centuries, a backlash of fear from the carefully calculated killings of Columbine and other schools that have experienced similar horrors. Yes, the startle effect still works for many - especially me - but it is more horrifying to watch the way the monstrous killer's mind works as he executes his horrifying plot to cause as much damage as possible.

Taste the Bride’s Satanic Rites of Dracula, Prince of Darkness, who has Risen from the Grave with Scars from A.D. 1972

Dracula’s tale has been retold on screen time and time again, with wildly varying levels of success. Some have concentrated on the shock of his vampiric nature, others on the horrific settings, others still on the sensual scenarios vampirism produces. In some instances the original tale is followed closely, in others it is completely reinvented. Regardless, there is still a collection of Dracula films that is hailed as the best attempts of any. It is no surprise that one of the most celebrated of these films came out of Hammer Film Production in the late 1950s.


Hammer Film Productions got its start in the mid-1930s. At that point in time, it was not involved in horror films, and even went bankrupt and dissolved. However, Hammer bounced back in the late 40s and filmed a good deal of mystery/thriller films during this period, refining their technique to a high level of mastery. In 1955, Hammer was presented with the opportunity to make a Frankenstein film, which they did to the chagrin of censors around the world. The film was the first intense horror film in vivid color, showing scenes of extreme (for the times) violence and gore. It was such a wild success that Hammer went on to create its very own Dracula film, aptly called Dracula (retitled as Horror of Dracula in the States as to not confuse it with Universal’s own Dracula film).


Horror of Dracula starts off in a very peculiar way. The very first shot is of Jonathan Harker dining in Dracula’s castle. Suddenly a woman rushes in and implores Harker to assist her in escaping Dracula’s castle. Harker laughs her off, insisting that as the new librarian he can do nothing for her. At that point, the Count makes his appearance and takes Harker to his room. Within the next fifteen minutes, there are teeth marks in Harker’s neck and a wooden stake in his hand, ready to remove the horror of Dracula from the world. Throughout the film, such wild liberties are taken with the Dracula tale (Harker, for instance, does not know of Dracula’s nature upon first entering his castle nor does he go for the sake of being a librarian). However, for someone that is familiar with the original story, it is rather refreshing to be unsure of who will be bitten and who will not (this creates some art-dread, especially in scenes with the maid’s young daughter, who is in more danger than we may care to think). Many names of characters are switched around and some characters personalities are totally reinvented (Hammer’s Van Helsing, for instance, is much more rationalistic and grounded than his Stoker counterpart).

The film, from Carroll’s perspective, obviously is a horror film. Dracula (as well as any other vampire in the film) is impure (living and dead), threatening (very strong, fast, and eager to kill), and those in the film certainly do not wish to be touched by him, making him an ideal Carroll monster. The main plot of the film also follows Carroll’s complex discovery plot. The onset occurs when we first see Harker in the castle, and witness the horrible events that he is faced with. Then there is discovery, by Van Helsing, in a classic scene in which locals are trying to run him away from Dracula as to not lead the undead fiend to them. Van Helsing is given by a local Harker’s diary that was found at the crossroads. Written within is Harker’s account of Dracula and the vampires, something that Harker and Van Helsing had studied together for some time before Harker’s attempt to destroy Dracula. After being tight-lipped to Harker’s fiancee’s brother Arthur, Van Helsing must try his best to protect the family from Dracula, who has come to London to wreak havoc on them. Eventually, through meeting up with the vampiric form of his sister, Arthur is convinced that the vampires are real, but his ignorance almost cost him his life. The discovery aspect being covered, the men are forced into a final confrontation when Arthur’s wife is abducted by the Count and returned to his castle. After a literal brawl between Dracula and Van Helsing, good triumphs over evil and the day is saved.


At least, the day is saved until Hammer followed up with sequels. As a matter of fact, there are seven direct sequels: Brides of Dracula, Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Dracula has Risen from the Grave, Taste the Blood of Dracula, Scars of Dracula, Dracula AD 1972, The Satanic Rites of Dracula. There are others, but they are not canonically related to these, after all, Dracula doing battle with seven kung-fu masters just does not seem to fit. With the possible exception of Brides, no other Dracula film that came out of Hammer studios held the same level of horror that Horror of Dracula did. The plots were watered down and uninteresting complex discovery plots, extremely predictable and tame (not at all gripping like Carroll suggests as a necessity of horror). Hammer attempted to make the vampires more repulsive with each film, but only succeeded in lifting the sense of disbelieve with rubber bats, buckets of violently red blood, and bad lighting effects. The horror of Dracula shifted from the mere image of the Count striking fear in the hearts of humans to the mere thought of the script striking fear in the hearts of humans.


If you are in the market for a classic Dracula romp that does have its moments of tension, excitement, and possibly even scares, then look no farther than Horror of Dracula (and Brides of Dracula too). If that does not quell your desire for Hammer films, try The Curse of Frankenstein and The Mummy on for size, surely you will find something worth screaming over.

The Blair Witch Project - A Review

The story begins with a narrative posted on the screen "In October of 1994, three student filmmakers disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland, while shooting a documentary....A year later their footage was found". So, as an audience member you know something is going to happen. But how the story unfolds in describing the events that lead to the film-maker's demise leave you on the edge of your seat!
In the beginning the filmmakers conduct interviews with the local townspeople concerning the urban legend of the Blair Witch. Several people comment that they have heard of the legend and that the witch would not let her victims look at her while she conducted acts of terror and murder on the children of the village. With this information, the film-maker's set off on their journey into the woods to document any evidence that they can find concerning the Blair Witch.
Upon entering the woods, the filmmakers find small stacks of rocks neatly placed along the path's entrance. Their placement and presence causes questions among the group, but none give the observation any more thought at the time. During the first night in the woods, the filmmakers are awakened by a mysterious and unseen noise on the outskirt of their camp site. The crew tries to film any activity and justify the noise in the dark as merely animals. However, the next morning the group discovers three piles of neatly stacked rocks surrounding their tent. The rocks were not there the night before, something or someone had visited their camp site during the night and left the rocks as evidence and to suggest that their presence in the woods was known. This discovery sets the plot for the rest of the movie as we now have onset by the characters. They think that there is something out in the woods and it is watching them. The next night is equally unnerving for the filmmakers, as they are disturbed while sleeping in their tent. However, this time, the tent is violently shaken and the group flees from the tent in the darkness of the night, scared out of their wits. After returning back to the camp site in the morning, they discover green slime covering Josh's belongings. This scene sets the tone for the first discovery that there is something in the woods. As the campers pack up their belongs and prepare to hike back to their car, they discover that they have lost or misplaced their map. They are deep in the woods and unsure which direction will lead them back to safety. They are short on supplies and trust within the group starts to break down. Equally important, during their days hike, they discover strange stick figures hanging in a grove of trees. Now, the filmmakers are really unnerved. As they leave the grove in search of a way out of the woods, one of the characters, Mike, confesses that he had kicked the map into the stream during a break the day before. Did the witch take control of Mike and will him to commit such a terrible act leaving the group helplessly lost in the woods? Tension and the sense of hopelessness increases throughout the group. They decide to camp for the night as dusk is quickly approaching. Upon waking the next morning, Josh is missing and is no where to be found. His friends call out for him, but he does not answer. Then, Heather finds a stack of twigs tied together with a strip of cloth, presumably from Josh's shirt. Heather unties the twigs and discovers a piece of bloody cloth containing what appears to be a human ear. This is the conformation stage for the characters. Josh is missing with no explanation, their food is gone, they are lost in the woods and they are scared. The two remaining filmmakers pack up their supplies and start to hike in search of their vehicle. They hike in vain, as they do not reach their destination. Night is falling and they hear what they think is Josh yelling from the distance. They run through the woods in search of their friend and they stumble upon an old deserted house. As they enter the house, the sound of Josh's voice is louder. First they check upstairs with no success. Then, the noise seems to coming from the basement. As they move through the house, the only light provided is from the spot light on the VHS camera. Heather is trailing behind Mike as he enters the basement, and then from behind the lens of the camera carried by Heather you see Mike standing in the corner and the camera drops to the group and goes fuzzy. This scene suggests that the witch has lead Mike and Heather to the basement to meet their demise. As Mike is standing in the corner with his back to the door, the witch will not let him look at her as she kills Heather as suggested in the comments from the local townspeople concerning the urban legend.
While according to N. Carroll's definition of a monster, that is something that is threatening, impure and can not be explained by science, we never actually see the witch and therefore can not conclude that a witch is responsible for the disappearance and demise of the characters and that there is no Art-Horror in this picture. However, C. Freeland suggests that by characterizing Dread as an ongoing fear of imminent threat form something unnerving and evil, yet not-well defined or understood. This approach, Dread, to the creation of the Blair Witch Project seems to be the more likely and applicable way to describe what the director is trying to emulate to the audience through the suspense scenes and indescribable events that transpire.
In summary, this film was very effective at scaring me, in fact it scared me to the bone. After watching the film, I woke up during the night thinking about what I had watched and chills ran up the back of my neck. Call it art-horror, or call it art-dread, the fact is simple...I was scared! In my opinion, this film is a classic horror film.

28 Days Later

Twenty Eight Days Later-directed by Danny Boyle and starring two British actors Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris is a whirlwind film leaving you on the edge of your seat. The movie opens in a science lab in London, England where dozens of monkeys are caged up and being used as guinea pigs for a new drug being constructed. Apparently the experiment awry around the same time a group of animal activists show up to save them. A scientist was still in the building and tried to stop the activists from releasing the animals; he kept yelling "They are infected!". He claimed that the monkeys were infected with rage and it was in their blood and couldn't be cured. If released, they would kill anything in their path and infect everything that came in contact with their saliva or their blood within twenty seconds. It was a vicious chain that would eventually destroy mankind. The activists did not believe the man and one of them opened a nearby cage despite the desperate screams not to-big mistake. The chimp instantly flew out of his cage attacking to woman who set him free (a nice way to say thanks) ripping open her neck and infecting her with rage. Within seconds she began transforming into a zombie-like creature who's mind was on nothing else but killing those who were "still alive". These creatures vomit blood as a means to infect their victims easier, for if the blood enters any part of their body they will become infected. The lab erupts into chaos and fades out to the present, or twenty eight days after the incident at the lab-hence the name of the film.
The movie is based on a group of four people who are trying to make their way to a military base so they are safe from what they call "the infected". Their journey brings about adventure and tragedy with different twists throughout the film. Once the group arives at the base, it is only the beginning for them. I don't want to ruin the movie for those who want to watch it but I do recommend this movie to horror film lovers. It gives you a different kind of feeling, one I can't quite put my finger on. I was left with an uneasy feeling-kind of like what happened in the movie could really happen because it all started with humans. I can confidently say that this film has a fantastic-uncanny plot to it. You really can naturally explain the source of these monsters.
In the scene following the lab, the main character Cillian Murphy finds out that the city has been evacuated but he is far from being alone. "The infected" come after him and as he is bolting down the street in desperation of outrunning these monsters he used to call his neighbors, you see from out of nowhere jars full of karosene smashing at the feet of "the infected". This scene resembles the one in Night Of The Living Dead when they were trying to get the truck filled with gas. It was interesting for me to relate this modern day movie to one that was created half a century ago and actually understand why the director for 28 Days Later used this technique on these creatures.
I think this movie carries come characteristics that would satisfy both Carroll and Freeland. Carroll would like this movie because "the infected" qualify as monsters. They are disgusting and very threatening. They also evoke fear in the characters as well as the audience. Cynthia Freeland talks of art-dread and this movie is a perfect example of her definition. For example, there is a scene in the movie where the car gets a flat tire. In the middle of changing it, a mass of rats comes running out of a tunnel nearby as if fleeing from something. After a few seconds of staring in the direction the rats came from, you can hear the screeching sounds of "the infected" making their way through the tunnel toward their victims. They are trying to hurry and get the tire changed and back into the car so they can escape their death before these monsters arrive and all of this happens in a matter of a minute at the most. So, during this time, you are on the edge of your seat screaming at the television for them to hurry and get away while being filled with this overwhelming anxiety that this can't possible turn out good. I won't tell you what happens but that was a good scene to fill you with that art-dread. You know something isn't right and something bad is bound to happen but you have no idea when they are going to come flying out of that tunnel. I really enjoyed this movie and even though I think sequels ruin the original for most horror films, I am planning on making my way to the theater as soon as I post this blog. :)

28 Weeks Later

Recently, I watched the new movie, "28 Weeks Later." This film would have fit perfect into this course. Especially in Carroll's sense. It had zombies that took over the world. This film was about a disease that had broken out in a country. Once they became infected with this disease they would die and after their death, they would come back to life as a zombie trying to kill the living to make them a zombie. This disease, as I said, killed a whole country, except for two kids and their dad. This all takes place in London. Once the disease is finally quarentined, they start to move people, including the young boy and girl, back into the city. They are only allowed to go to specific parts of the city and are not allowed to cross London Bridge to the other side of the city, because it is believed to be still infected. The two kids don't listen to that and they end up crossing the bridge and go back to their home where the boy finds his mother, somehow still alive after living on the bare minimum in their old house. The army finds the kids over there and also the mother. They bring them back to the place that is disease free and find out that the mother has the disease (she is a carrier) but does not die from it because she is a carrier of the disease. It can only be spread through blood contact or saliva mixing. The kids father ends up kissing her and he gets the disease and the whole epidemic starts all over again. The father turns into a zombie killing people and turning them into zombies and it keeps going on and on. They finally tell the army to kill anyone and everyone, even the people who aren't infected. They do so, but one soldier decides that he isn't going to let innocent people die so he takes them under his wing and protects them because he knew that there was something special about the little boy. The father (infected) bites his son, but nothing happens to him, he doesn't die or become a zombie. This can only mean one thing...the boy is a carrier of the disease so he can't be infected. He is the link to saving the population of the world. The movie ends by showing a bunch of zombies running towards the Eyful Tower in Paris and the movie ends. So, by seeing this, we are led to believe that the disease is taking over the world.



This film would have worked perfect in this class. Everything that we have studied, played a part in this film. There was a complex discovery plot. There was art-horror, there was art-dread, everything! This movie was very art-horrifying. The way that the zombies are portrayed is amazing. They become very violent and bloody, killing and wanting to kill anything in its way. This is a perfect example of what a horror film should be like in Carroll's mind. The reason is because the monster (zombie) is portrayed as disgusting and out to get everyone, and it does. This is also a good example of art-dread. The living people dread every second that they are alive because they are afraid that these things are going to attact them and kill them and they are absolutely dreading that. Overall, this movie, in my opinion, was excellent. I don't think that I would have thought that it was so good, had I not taken this class. I actually watched it and was thinking about how it was art-horrifying and how it was a complex discovery. This film is perfect for this class!!!

Why Do We Keep Watching??

Why do we keep on watching horror films if it makes us scared, hide our eyes, jump, and scream? Is it because psychologically as human beings we believe that there is something out there besides ourselves? Or is it because each one of us have had some kind of personal experience that is unexplained and that brings out our inner most fears? Does horror films help us take these inner most fears and put them in a setting that we can manage because they are in a film and not directly affecting us? The wanting and the intrigue of viewing these films tap into our own phyche. This is the curse of our horror and intrigues of it. Lovecraft says it well when he says, “Children will always be afraid of the dark and men with minds sensitive to hereditary impulse will always tremble at the thought of the hidden and fathomless worlds of strange life which may pulsate in the gulfs beyond the stars, or press hideously upon our own globe in unholy dimensions which only the dead and the moonstruck can glimpse."
These films to me are so intriguing and so wanting for our lives because many of them have religious backgrounds. I believe that we were made by God. So in that belief we live in a daily struggle between good and evil. There is a holy war that is ever going on between God and the Devil that is going on even if we can not physically see it. In that thinking I believe that many horror films bring out this thinking. There is a battle between good and evil that is visual for us and our minds feel more comfortable and capable when we are able to visually see something. In movies like The Exorcist and The Omen there is a religious battle going on that can be visually seen. Movies like that of Frankenstein to me have underlying meanings towards religion in that the monster was created by a man trying to be like God in his doing and the monster being abandoned and treated as wicked by the world like that of the Devil. These movies to us show how everyone of us are made in God's likeness and that their is something in ourselves that is struggling with good and evil everyday that we are not aware of. Our lives are an ever going onus of religious warfare if we are conscious or not of it. These movies help us to bring out our inner most feelings of it consciously through a controlled environment.

The OMEN

Coming into this movie I felt like I was ready for anything especially after the viewing of "JU-ON". The Omen is a film that also hits home with my personal beliefs about Heaven & Hell, God & the Devil. I don't know why I am so intrigued by this kind of movie with biblical connections since the Exorsist has helped in my lack of sleep and my seeing of the image of the Devil's face. This movie to me what not as horrifying overall that other horror movies have been to me. The one true thing that horrified me in this film is the music. The music that led up to and that was during every intense event just made my bones chill. I don't know if it was because it sounded like music that I heard as a child in church from the old hymes or if it was because it had an evil outcome during the hyme like hearing of the deaths and killings. I think that the music was key in the sequence of this film because it allowed the viewer to truly feel that something was going to happen that was not going to be good. It almost felt like the music gave the viewer a feeling that the Devil was mocking God when the Devil was killing people with the background of Christian music.
Another thing that really stuck out in my head was the pictures the photographer was taking. It was weird and eary how after the picture was taken of a specific person a symbol would be present on that person that was not in the original taking of the picture and as it was closer to that person's death the item in the picture would get stronger and more definite. This has made me think about other movies like the Sixth Sense and the Ring and Ringu because the pictures in those movies were changed when someone was watching them in the Sixth Sense and when they were going to die in the Ring or Ringu. I find myself looking at pictures in a different way because of this. These pictures in the Omen show to me that the Devil has a lot of power. This movie shows me that the Devil is ever so present in our daily lives and that we should not take our lives so lightly in the pursuit of God. The Devil is powerful but God is more. This film helps me examine my own life and my personal walk with God in a brighter light. The Ambassador in the Omen was asked to take the blood and body of Jesus Christ but he choose not to see the light of God ultimitaly dying because of his lack of convictions.

The Original Exorcist

The Original Exorcist
Saturday, May 26, 2007
The Original Exorcist
I have not had the great opportunity to preview the original Exorcist and man I wish I hadn't either. This film has given me nightmares for a week. I keep on seeing visions of the Devil that came up in as split second images throughout this film. I was a little hesitant about watching this film because I had seen versions of this film that were making fun of parts in it like that in Scary Movie. I thought that this movie would not be able to horrify me because of the impression I already had on it. Boy was I wrong!! As I watched this film it really hit home to my beliefs about God and the Devil. Myself being a Christian that believes in the Bible can really believe the happenings and the power of which the Devil can have on our lives. I began to watch this movie when it became dark last week with my wife. But as the movie started to become more intense my wife went upstairs to put my son to bed, so I was left by myself to experience the rest of the film. I found myself cringing, sweating, and my heartbeat quicken as I watched the happenings of the possessed girl and through the exorcism. I couldn't look away even though in the back of my mind I wanted to stop the film and get my wife to view the rest of it with me. I made it through it though, barely. Since the viewing of this film, I have woken up twice in a sweat. I can't get the vision of the Devil out of my head. I don't know if it is because of my beliefs in the Devil's ability or if it is because of the movie's ability to horrify me. What ever it is I wish that this movie would just leave me alone and let me go back to sleep. Time will only tell

A Necessity?

Horror movies have changed since the beginning and this holds true to the different opinions on when horror movies as a genre began. It has changed in so many ways and in much intensity in many areas. The change has even led to differences and debates about what the genre entails. The plots have changed, the special effects (in every way, intensity, persistence, money),, the marketing , the target audience, ect…. Why have these changes occurred and have they been somewhat necessary to keep horrifying an audience? You could assume that this may be plausible due to the fact that the viewing audience is one that is changing quickly and in many respects as the world is as well. Can what horrify’s us change or can even the emotions which we equate with horrifying change as well? Or are all of these emotions secondary to some basic ones? Is the directors main goal to try and elicit whatever secondary emotion is most easily accessible due to the times and if so is this changing for the right reasons or not? Does special affects change our ideas of horror and can desensetation be applied to plots and narratives the same way that it is applied to aesthetics?

The possibilities for narratives and plots change with what emotion may be the easiest to manipulate at the time and elicit fear. This can be shown in sub-conscious themes in movies such as Them, Night of the living Dead, and Thing. Not to say that the other possibilities to manipulate other emotions are not possible they are just not as on the surface as others at the time. Desenseation of plot and aesthetics can come from our real world. When the atomic bomb was dropped and we see images like Vietnam on the mass media or on the cover of times. Science has been progressing so much that cloning is not surprising anymore to hear about or the advancement in medical technology that to some are mind boggling how it works and the massive size of it. The onslaught of mass murders and the disillusionment of the government. These images put more pressure on horror movies to change in a way to keep up with what we are seeing in real life. How horrifying or unknown does something in a movie appear if you can think of an example in real life that isn’t that farfetched from it? Or the unknown in the present horror movie genre is not as compelling of the unknown in the real world. How scary is a vampire when there are genetic mutations or sickness from radiation and chemicals from the military complex or chemical companies. How unknown and horrifying is a haunted house that just makes sounds when you have “haunted houses’ and realistic video games of haunted houses where you shoot the ghost. Just the progression of special affects and the affects it has on the viewing advance at large; will trickle over to almost every fiction movie genre at large. After you see a sci-fi movie with cool special affects the viewing audience as a large may want more and may need more just to fulfill their new level of imagination that is needed to create emotions of horror. The greater numbers of horror movies each year made competition even fiercer. People had to try and set themselves apart from others. This meant plot and aesthetics. Plots and narratives like aesthetics had to change as well because the more movies that are done in the same fashion than the less responsive advances may seem to be. There has to be bad horror and o.k. horror movies for there to be great ones. If everyone were great than how horrifying would each next one be? A person born in the post modern horror age who has not watched any previous may find a new horror movie the scariest thing every. Someone though who has been born earlier may not think that though. Can this same thing be said to art? What does someone think about contemporary art who was born in the 1890’s. He may have a different idea of what beautiful is than a person born in the 1960’s. Does that mean then that contemporary art vs. whatever art was popular during the 1890’s have differing ideas on what beautiful is or just different vehicles in how they arrive there. Are the movies no longer art because the bottom line is money and the creativeness in each one is eventually aimed towards that? A horror movie that doesn’t horrifies but, makes millions.

Enjoying A "Horror" Film

Can we really be 'Art-Horrified' by films made as far back as 1933? In films such as "Nesferatu" and a handful of others, the answer may be yes. But with the viewing of "The Invisible Man" with the famous Claude Rains, I must admit I was not.
One can see the formula for the typical horror film be unvieled. The stages are all there. A mysterious being presents itself, looking like a bundled man, but many villagers shy away from him as he enters the local inn, for no obvious reason. This man asks for a room as tries to keep himself concealed from the public at large, but is discovered by a well-intentioned but annoying innkeeper. This begins the discovery stage and a short "hesitation" ensues, while the villagers at large begin to see the "man" for what he is.
He is a scientist who injected himself with a rare chemical to achieve invisibility. While he realizes his goal, he is unaware that this same drug will eventually turn him to "white marble". The audience is informed through conversations with a colleague of "Jack" (the invisible man.) We learn a lot by this technique, as Jack's colleague is also the father of his girlfriend, Flora.
Flora is trying desperately to find Jack, but he wants to stay hidden until he is able to work out how to undo the effects of the drug, monocaine. (Is there any relevance to this name?) Meanwhile, the innkeeper tries to evict Jack and is assaulted. That is enough to bring in the police, which leads to another altercation and eventually a death. Jack has now emerged as the "monster" and the confirmaiton stage is intact. He is totally involved with finding a solution to his problem. He remains at large by simply removing his clothes and thus becoming invisible.
Jack seeks the help of another colleague, who is also in love with Flora, and feels threatened by Jack's presence in his home. His solution is to call the police, but first he calls Flora's father, who arrives immediately before the police. Flora wants to talk to Jack. He presents here as a concerned and loving man, but soon leaves Flora upon the arrival of the police.
While trying to elude the police and public until he can resolve his dilemma, he is discovered by a farmer in a barn. His breathing gives hime away. The confrontation stage begins, and Jack is shot while trying to run away. He is betrayed by his footsteps.
While he is dying, his physical self reappears, and here we see an attractive man, not a monster at all. But I believe there is a social comment there about the ability of everyone to be deceitful and single-minded about their goals, yet still be human, as is revealed int he final stages of Jack's life.
This plot seemed very obviously the 'Over-reacher' plot of the mad scientist, trying to become more powerful. The last line almost confirms this, "I mettled in things man must leave alone." Again, a social comment about realizing the reasons for limiting our "ghoulish" experiments and the effects they may have on ourselves and others. The thought is provoking, but I was not horrified. I just enjoyed the movie.

The Others

If you enjoy watching quality horror films and haven’t had the chance to view The Others directed by Alejandro Amenabar starring Nicole Kidman then you should make it the next horror movie you view. If you’ve already seen it, then you’ll know what I’m speaking on. After taking a class on the philosophy of horror films and watching a number of classic and contemporary horror films, an appreciation for the quality films can be established. This is one of those high quality films. This film gives the audience a strongly eerie and suspended feeling throughout the whole movie. In all actuality, I had no idea exactly what was happening to the very beautiful yet very unnerving Nicole Kidman and her children in that house. At first glance, this film is a pretty tight copy of the classic horror film The Innocents in which a nanny comes to an old mansion to watch over the kids. Weird things start happening in the mansion and the kids act very shady about the whole situation. The nanny loses her mind and begins taking it out on the kids and the rest of the servants who live in the house. The whole film has an air of suspense where the audience has no idea if the supernatural is occurring or if more likely the nanny is just gone insane. The Others begins with a similar storyline with the exception of the crazy nanny in The Innocents is the mother played by Nicole Kidman who was nominated for a Golden Globe for her performance. When strange things start happening in her mansion, Kidman along with her children all react with a naturalistic approach thinking that there are intruders in the house. Everyone in the house have different views of what is happening. The kids say they see the intruders, the mother at first doesn’t believe her children until she experiences their presence and then starts on a rampage with a gun to find these intruders in her house. The servants act strange from the beginning and see far too calm until we realize that they know what is happening in the house, but they never tell anyone, including the audience. This movie like The Innocents has an air of suspense but this sense of suspense is rooted more deeply in the supernatural. The audience should sense that the house is haunted but is unsure because of the stubbornness of the mother and her children to believe in ghosts and the suspicious servants.
From this point the two storylines of The Innocents and The Others seem very similar with alterations to attitudes and relationships of the characters. What puts The Others over the edge and into a much greater category of the unknown is something seen in very few horror films, a plot twist at the end. Unlike in The Innocents, the whole situation is discovered and all events in the house become much clearer as to why they occurred. A complex plot twist like this gives the audience a truly horrified feeling at the climax of the movie and makes it worth ever second of viewing. This strong sense of revelation for the characters in the film is shared by the audience and the truth is so eerie that it leaves the audience in an uneasy state even after all is finished and over. Want to know what happens? Watch it for yourself to find out.

The Horror of Heavy Metal

So, the Vh1 Rock Honors were on tonight. Though I listen to a lot of different music from rock to country and gospel to bluegrass, I’m not a big heavy metal fan. A few days ago, however, I happened to catch a “rockumentary” called “Heavy: The Story of Metal” and it piqued my interest. Anyway, one of the “Vh1 Rock Honors” tonight was none other than Ozzy Osbourne, the front-man for one of the most famous metal bands in history—Black Sabbath.

But back to why I became interested in the metal “rockumentary”—I found out over the couple of hours that I watched it that groups such as Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, and others had a pretty obvious connection to the horror genre. For those of you who are clueless about what kind of point I’m trying to make here, let me give you a little bit of background on the bands and why I feel they have a strong connection to what we’ve been studying the past few weeks.

Black Sabbath

The group’s name “Black Sabbath” came into being when the bassist Geezer Butler wrote a song of the same title. Geezer was a big fan of Dennis Wheatley, a famous British writer of occult and thriller novels. Supposedly Geezer dabbled in the occult himself. As the story goes, one night Geezer saw an ominous black figure at the foot of his bed and found an occult book missing the next morning. So the name “Black Sabbath” was born. Also, it just so happens that Boris Karloff was in a movie called “Black Sabbath” in 1963. When the group was rehearsing in a studio one day, they noticed that a horror movie was being shown in the cinema across the street. The band began to purposely write dark, ominous songs in an attempt to be music's answer to horror films. Even the cover of their albums resemble what many would label “horror." Check this out:

Here’s an example of some of their more "interesting" lyrics:

What is this that stands before me?

Figure in black which points at me

Turn around quick, and start to run

Find out I'm the chosen one - Oh no! (copyright of Black Sabbath)

Sounds like a pretty good example of horror to me!

But why stop with one example? Judas Priest is another really well-known heavy metal group (they’ve sold over 35 million albums). Here’s an example of their lyrics:

Any back alley street

Is where we'll probably meet

Underneath a gas lamp

Where the air's cold and damp

I'm a nasty surprise

I'm a devil in disguise

I'm a footstep at night

I'm a scream of the fright (copyright of Judas Priest)

And an album cover:

While I think Carroll has a very interesting theory about what art-horror should be, I think he is mistaken when he makes the assumption that a horribly impure monster is one of the main necessities. I can see music and lyrics like that of Black Sabbath and Judas Priest doing a better job at inciting art-horror than some of the movies we've seen in class (aka "The Thing"). The heavy, dark music can provoke feelings of dread and suspense, while the lyrics can be blatantly chilling. To disregard poetry, music, and "non-monster-containing" artwork as examples of horror is, in my opinion, to do an injustice to the horror genre. By including a variety of mediums--not just films and novels--we can make horror an even more effective, all-encompassing genre.

"CARRIE"

I decided it was time for me to see the movie “Carrie.” After watching, I now know why my dad was a bit reluctant to name me Carrie (Kari). I know that there is already a post discussing the plot of this particular film, therefore I will spend little time really summarizing the plot step by step.

Carrie is a quiet, almost innocent looking, high school girl. As watching you really seem to feel bad for her. She is teased by all the other girls at school and who knows what all her mother is doing to her throughout this film. Her mother is very religious woman, almost to extremes, that won’t let her daughter be a teenage girl. You just have this very weird feeling whenever in the presence of the mother. Her daughter starts her period and for some reason this sends her into a frenzy. It is all very strange and unsettling.

I believe this film really shows an example of Freeland’s art-dread, with a mixture of Carroll and Schneider in there to some degree. The whole movie you just have this feeling that something isn’t right. It was unnerving, disturbing, and there’s just this sense of anxiety. What is going on in this girls head? I just wanted to tell the girls to stop teasing her, she is going to snap. I simply had that feeling that something could go horribly wrong.

Carrie is not necessarily a girl that you really fear, until the end that it is. She is the character you feel sorry for. I don’t think that in Carroll’s definition of a monster, Carrie would necessarily fit, but there are instances where you definitely fear her and are a bit disgusted. For instance, at her prom when the pig blood is poured onto to her and it is dripping down her face and body, I must admit it seemed a bit monstrous looking to me. It was disgusting, but at the same time it was unnerving. At this point you still feel bad for her and then she snaps. I honestly was just waiting for something bad to happen. You have that feeling that something is going to go extremely wrong here. By now she is aware of her “magical” powers if you will. She has the ability to move objects. Her mother refers to them as devil powers, bringing a bit of the supernatural into this film. She then basically kills everybody at prom.

The part that I found to be the most horrifying was the end, in which the girl that felt bad for the way she had treated Carrie, Sue, seemed to be sick from shock. In her dreams she is bringing flowers to Carrie’s house and all of a sudden Carrie’s bloody arm comes out and grabs her. This was definitely not expected considering the house had fallen on Carrie and her mother. It created that startle effect as well as a bit of what Schneider discussed with built up suspense followed by a sudden surprise. In a sense, this whole movie is suspense with a sudden surprise. From the beginning you just get this feeling something is not right and then comes prom.

This film is a prime example of a postmodern horror film. This is definitely more of a pessimistic film. Good does not conquer evil; she kills everybody, even the people that were nice to her. It doesn’t seem as though one person is left alive except for Sue (who had her boyfriend, Tommy, take Carrie to the prom because she felt bad for teasing her; when Sue showed up at prom, the gym teacher thought she was up to something and escorted her out). There really is no closure in this film and you are left to wonder whether she is dead or alive. You are not reassured that she is in fact dead, as in lifeless. She does have powers.

In a lot of ways this does have relevance in today’s society. While the powers I don’t feel to be realistic or plausible, the idea behind this film is not completely implausible. I don’t want to really get into this topic too far, but there are instances such as Columbine, or even the more recent Virginia tech incident. While it is not necessarily realistic in the way that Carrie did this, I do think that this has a natural or real horror mix to this as well. There is this fear.

Halloween-Not Just Another Holiday

I would have to agree with those critics who rank Halloween as one of the most horrific movies of all time. After viewing the film, there are several instances throughout the entire movie that are unnerving.

The movie begins in what seems like an ordinary neighborhood, Haddonfield. You see a little boy dressed in a clown suit who for no apparent reason, murders his sister and ends up catatonic. The psychologist working on his case, Dr. Loomis, is well aware that there is something out of the ordinary with this young man...that he is pure evil. He argues that the facility he is being held in is not secure enough, but is told that Michael Meyers, our monster in this case, will stay there. They will soon regret this decision.

We are then introduced to another of our main characters, Laurie, who happens to be Michael's younger sister. She is living in the town of Haddonfield and becomes the object of Michael's attention after he escapes from the sanitarium where he has been for the past 15 years.

As he continues pursuing her, Laurie spots Michael wearing his white mask on several occasions. She is unaware of who he is until he goes on a murderous spree with her being the last target among her friends. She escapes and our monster is again reconnected with Dr. Loomis, who shoots him 6 times. Michael falls over a second story balcony and he is gone for good-or is he?

The movie involves so many aspects of horror. In this film there is the element of sound that is involved. Everybody can tell what movie is playing if they hear the theme music from the movie. You also have this monster in his signature white mask that gives you an eerie feeling. And if all that isn't enough, you are confronted with the run down house that has been boarded up for years since the murder and it looks like such an eyesore in the neighborhood that you can't help but think something not quite right went on there.

I've seen this movie a couple of times and I still have a hard time watching it before I go to bed. If you get the creeps easily, I would recommend you save this movie for a bright and sunny lazy day. Keep the lights on, you'll be glad you did.

Faith

The Exorcist could quite possibly be the best example of religious-based horror. There seems to be a conflict between religion and science in this film that gets resolved in the final scenes. Not only non-believers, but also those in practice of it question faith throughout the film.

The main character, Chris MacNeil is not a religious woman. But when her daughter Regan becomes “sick,” and medicine cannot cure her, Chris is forced to turn to religion.

In her struggle to find a cure for her daughter, Chris finds Father Karras. Father Karras is experiencing a debate about his own faith when Chris comes to him. He is constantly struggling between religion and science. The noticeable conflict would be that he is not only a priest, but he also is trained in psychology. Though his practice is in priesthood, he relies heavily on medicine over faith. He feels at a loss when someone comes to him with problems that have to do with religion. In the scene involving Father Karras during mass, it shows his strain and doubt of faith when he labors through the words of the consecration.

In the Exorcism sequences of the film, Father Karras’ doubts about his faith are wiped away when he confronts the demon in Regan. He leaps on the devil-possessed Regan and then leaps through the window before the demon could fully possess him. This ritualistic sacrifice comments on the relationship that exists between exorcism and the Mass. Father Karras commits suicide, a moral sin that means automatic excommunication and external damnation in the Catholic Church.

By the conclusion of the film, Father Karras has absolved his sins before his selfless sacrifice, so he dies faithful, guiltless, and redeemed. His sacrifice and successful exorcism has instilled in Chris a sense of faith, which shows the simultaneous reestablishment of faith in both man and God.

The overall message of this film: If we have faith in nothing else except man, then there is no possibility of salvation. If faith in man is gone, the only thing left to save us is the belief in something higher.

The Ring

The movie The Ring I found to have three theories combined into one movie. It follows Carrols account of what a movie needs to include to be Art-Horror. The movie has a monster that is threatening since it haunts and goes after each person that has watched the tape. Each individual has exactly seven days before they die. The monster is disgusting her skin is pale almost a blue color and with long dark hair hanging in front of her face. Most of the time you didn’t see her face, but when you did her eyes were yellow, mouth dark and face a very blue color with red veins coming thru the skin. The monster is in all impure from her lightly talked voice, the way she crawls to get the individual on the seventh day and how innocent you think she is. One scene that stands out of my mind is towards the end of the movie and you think that Samara is free from harming others. She comes back to get Noah and she crawls out of the television and when she looks up you can see how disgusting and scary her face really is. After each person dies they are found with a signature facial expression. Their faces are struck in a position as they were screaming of terror or for help the movie never exactly tells you. This movie’s monster also falls under the condition that scientist today could not prove of such thing to actually occur.

I saw Freeland’s account throughout the movie which co-insides with Carrols account. Along with the fear and disgust there was a sense of Art-dread. The movie brought anxiety to each scene because you were unsure of who was going to get hold of the tape next or if the main character Rachel was going to survive by finding the answers. The theme of good and evil was also portrayed throughout the film. The whole story behind what happened to Samara who is the monster is so evil and how she goes after these innocent people just so she can be heard is worse. I think a horrible scene is when Rachel wakes up from having a nightmare and hears the television on in the other room and comes to find out that her son Aidan had watched the tape also. By the end of the movie I believe they answer most of the micro questions that I had been wondering about, but not the macro question. This led me to think of many conclusions that could have occurred. Although the questions were answered they were very vague and generalized which also described Freeland’s account.

The spectator emotion was shown I felt which is part of Schneider’s account. Although you heard the story that you would die in seven days if you watched the tape you wanted to know what was on the tape. Once the first death of Katie happened and you found out that her friends that watched it with her also at the same time you wanted to know how it worked. Each time someone dies was different in a unique way which I also wanted to know who and how was the next person going to die. For example when Rachel and Aidan go to Katie’s layout at their home the mother keeps saying I saw her face and the way she looked she didn’t just die because her heart stopped it had to be something else.

I found the use of sounds and color were a big part of this film. Mostly everything throughout the film was down and dreary. Everyone wore light tops and darker bottoms even the houses didn’t have bright colors. The color red would arrive in the movie when a new victim watched the movie or was about to die on their seventh day. At the end of the movie you see the significance of the color because it comes from a tree that Samara looked at everyday before she was killed by her mother. Example of this is when Rachel is watching the movie and the color red rises through the window into the house as if it were the sun. The movie seemed to do the exact opposite of what I thought for the music. When the monster was approaching it played the same tone throughout , but it wasnt loud it was softer. They used loud music for when you think something is going to happen, but doesn’t. For example when a train flew bye it was loud, but when the monster was coming it was like a tune o the piano.

After viewing the movie I looked at some extra features that were on the movie. In these special features it showed a trailer for the movie Ringu and also talked about it which I found interesting. This movie the Ring seemed to have originated from Ringu just like the Grudge we watched in class except it was called Ju-on. Although it seemed like Ringu was very different from The Ring you could see many techniques and some plot features that were similar. I just found it very interesting how they showed an extra on this movie which Americans took off from.

There is a sequel to The Ring which was made in 2005 and begins exactly where the first Ring ends off. Although the main characters try to get away from the wrath of Samara she seems to find them and continue her terror and to be heard.

DiStUrBiA

For those who have not seen this movie this paragraph will provide a brief summary of Disturbia, but if you are interested in seeing it please don’t read on. Shia LaBeouf is playing a teen who has just lost is father and is very distraught. He can’t concentrate and doesn’t care about school anymore. In class he takes his anger a little too far and punches his teacher in the face. After this incident he is taken to court and put on house arrest for three months. Due to boredom he starts to spy on his neighbors and suspects one of them to be the one that is killing women.
Disturbia, a film that is under the horror genre has horrifying scenes, but also shared comedy and a complex discovery plot. The complex discovery plot starts with the onset when Kale (Shia LaBeouf) notices his neighbor Mr. Turner (David Morse) has a ’69 Blue Mustang with a dented fender that fits the description of the car that was seen when a girl went missing. This is when Kale makes the link that this guy could be a killer. There is controversy whether Mr. Turner truly is a killer or not. The discovery begins while Kale is spying on Mr. Turner and explains to his friend Ronnie (Aron Yoo) and Ashley (Sarah Roemer) that he could be the evil being who kills young women. Kale begins investigating Mr. Turner’s home by diligently watching daily activites. Kale also has his friend Ronnie break into his car and retrieve the code for his garage. The confirmation stage is extended throughout the movie because the audience does not know for sure if Mr. Turner is the true serial killer or not. Kale tries to convince his mom that he is the killer, but she along with the police do not believe him because of all the trouble he has been in. According to Carroll this is what draws us to watch films and in this movie it is very important because it’s why Kale has to confront the killer and save his mom, friends, and himself. The confrontation can be found in several different scenes. There is a scene where Mr. Turner stops Ashley in a parking garage and gets in her car to tell her to leave him alone and allow him to have his privacy. This scene provoked suspense because it wasn’t obvious if he was going to hurt her. The ultimate confrontation is displayed at the end of the movie where Kale learns from his videotape a face of a dead young woman. He realizes his mom is over the killer’s house at that moment trying to convince Mr. Turner not to press charges because Kale and his friend Ronnie broke into his house that night. The killer duct tapes Kale’s moms’ mouth, arms, and legs and puts her in his hiding place. He then shows up over Kale’s home where he smashes Ronnie in the head and duct tapes Kale’s hands and mouth. Ashley comes to the rescue and jumps on the killers back leaving time for Kale to get up and hit him. Ashley sets Kale free. Kale jumps out of his bedroom window into the neighbor’s pool and runs to the killer’s house. He finds where the killer has been keeping all the dead bodies. He eventually discovers his mom, still alive and saves her while killing the evil Mr. Turner.
This movie along the lines of Carroll is not art-horror, but natural horror. The monster is a human being not a fictional monster or supernatural entity. I consider Mr. Turner a “monster” because he is very fearsome, disgusting, and impure. He killed young women and dismembered their bodies, which is very horrifying. Also this is considered natural horror because in real life there are such things as serial killers. I thought this movie was interesting because of the confirmation stage and how good conquer evil in the end. The movie is filled with suspense, horror, and comedy. The suspense is accompanied according to Carroll with micro and macro questions. In Disturbia we see the macro question as will Kale, his family, friends, and the neighborhood survive this serial killers wrath? A micro question in the movie is will Kale and Ashley become more than just acquaintances? From these questions we locate suspense in the movie because we are on the edge of our seats wondering what is going to happen next. The scene that provoked horror to me was the scene where Kale is fighting for his life and his mother’s life. He is in a dark, dreary, wet, and dirty basement trying to find his mom and when he does the killer appears suddenly from behind her and attacks Kale, but Kale is triumphant. This scene was very horrifying to me because I felt the fear behind Kale and the other victims that had been attacked by this serial killer. The movie also had a light side to it with the comedy that was thrown in. There were a few scenes where the audience in the theater laughed out loud.
So what makes one choose to go see a movie over another? I believe this has to do with plot. When I look up movies I read reviews and learn the basic storyline. The ones that interest me are due to the plot. I believe this movie has an intriguing plot and is worth watching. It is not the best movie I have seen, but if you want a movie that is entertaining with some scenes of horror you should see it. Also I believe that the acting in this movie was very well done, I give Shia LaBeouf a lot of credit because I didn’t know if he could pull it off, being a ex Disney star, but he did.

Has Society Become Tolerant to Violence?

All over the news, all over the silver screen, all over the streets...violence is an every day occurence and constantly surrounds us. Half a century ago the most exciting event on the news was the weather. Now you can't get through a newscast without hearing reports of a murder, rape, or robbery. What has this society come to? Is it just "normal" to have this happen? Are we just supposed to accept this as an everyday occurrence and go on living our lives? What has happened over the years? Did our tolerance just gradually increase over time to watch such violence on television and not bat an eye? In the 1960's, people would watch a horror film and scream at the sight of Dracula leaning over his victim to sink his blood thirsty fangs in to their pulsing, soft flesh-but you wouldn't actually witness this for his cape would block your view and force the viewer to use his or her imagination. As Carroll would put it...this is art-horror at it's best. You have a monster who is threatening and also disgusting when he becomes crazed at the sight or smell of blood (disgusting). He evokes fear in the audience when he shows his fangs and those legandary bulging eyes before he strikes. But that is all you get..no blood or tearing of flesh; just a woman's scream and the crash of gothic music combined to send shivers down your spine. In today's age, though, that would be enough to bore one to tears. Why you ask? Because people want more, they don't want to leave anything to the imagination. They can see more in a commertial or a trailor to the latest scary movie than what you get in the older horror films such as Dracula. It seems as though plastic fangs and gothic music just doesn't cut it anymore. If 90% of the movie doesn't involve gore and the most detailed murderous scenes, people won't waste their time or money to watch it.
I conducted a small survey one evening during a time when my house was infested with twenty-year-olds because I was curious to see what these testosterone-filled minds thought of the horror film/genre. My results were as I expected. None of them would go see a movie that did not involve some sort of combat, fighting, or killing. They claimed to grow bored if the action was not persistant. They were even generous enough to come up with a small list of requirements for a "good" movie.
1. The movie must have violence of some sort (very specific list)
2. The movie must show excessive gore or gruesome scenes throughout the film.
3. Someone has to die-and die violently at that. The more blood the better the movie
4. The occasional "hot chick" would be just fine with them. They claim it makes the film well rounded and not all about violence. (see above requirements if you want a nice giggle)
5. The movie must be rated R because a PG-13 movie is not gruesome enough for their taste.
These young men grew up watching Power Rangers, Are You Afraid of The Dark?, Goosebumps, VR Troopers, Mortal Kombat, Alien, The Terminator, etc... This is mild compared to what they are into now, but much more violent and invasive than the Sesame Street and My Little Pony that I grew up watching.
If anyone is interested in why this country is going to Hell in a handbasket, maybe they should ask why the television industry is airing such violent shows to be viewed by the public and allowing more and more to be uncensored. Flashing a little icon in the upper right corner of the screen is not going to mean much to the kid who's parent's aren't attached to his hip. At least you can prevent a ten-year-old from seeing the newest slasher film in the theater; but once it hits the shelves he will have much less trouble getting his hands on it. It is very easy to see why this society is so tolerant to what they watch on television or what they witness on the playground. Violence surrounds us every day and the movie industry has an obligation to it's viewers to keep up with their needs or they know that they will lose business due to the fact that their viewers will grow bored. The post-modern horror is almost too outdated to be called post-modern. Will this thirst for violence and human destruction slow down, or will the horror genre become too horrifying to handle? I suppose only time will tell..

Filming Insanity

A plethora of highly regarded horror writers have had their tales put up on the silver screen in successful ventures. Films based on the writings of Stephen King, Clive Barker, and even Poe have generally met with success and have acquired large fan bases. However, not all horror authors (or, at the very least, authors of weird fiction) have had as much success on the screen. In the opinion of practically everyone that has both read his works and seen films based on his work, there is no film that truly captures the horror found in the works of H.P. Lovecraft. Is there something in his particular brand of horror that makes it unsuited for cinema, or has it just been unfortunate fate that no one with great skill has made the attempt?

First, one should look at Lovecraft’s writings and determine whether they would even fit the horror genre if applied directly to film. For this exercise, we shall consider the philosophy of Carroll. Lovecraft’s most famous tales (those most likely to be made into films) typically have to do with the Old Ones, alien beings that descended upon the Earth before the time of humans and lie beneath the sea neither alive nor dead. The “sleeping” Old Ones influence the transactions of all of humanity by means of magic and cults in an effort to be reawakened, at which point they will utterly undo all of human existence. Any attempt by a character to describe the beings involves incoherent rambling wherein Lovecraft imposes adjective after unrelated adjective in an effort to show the overwhelming nature of the beings and how they are unlike anything in human existence. For Carroll, this presents the story with a definite monster (an Old One). In his short tale, “The Call of Cthulhu”, he describes the first appearance of the story’s namesake in the following way: “The Thing cannot be described - there is no language for such abysms of shrieking and immemorial lunacy, such eldritch contradictions of all matter, force, and cosmic order. A mountain walked or stumbled.” For Carroll, this presents us with a host of impurities – it is nothing within the bounds of natural physics, and yet there it towers before its horrified discoverers. On top of that, as with all Old Ones, Cthulhu is previously described as being neither alive nor dead, but waiting to be awakened by its cult. Being neither alive nor dead exceeds our understanding of the natural world, and the fact that it can actively influence the world above whilst in a “sleep” is also a deviation from the norm. Furthering a Carrollian account of horror, in the next paragraph, we are told that, “Three men were swept up by the flabby claws before anybody turned.” This indicates that the monster is definitely a threat, killing three of its discoverers almost instantly. Finally, beyond its impurities, the maddening mountain was also physically disgusting, “Everyone listened, and everyone was listening still when It lumbered slobberingly into sight and gropingly squeezed Its gelatinous green immensity through the black doorway into the tainted outside air of that poison city of madness.” In this fashion, we have been presented with a monster that would satisfy Carroll’s criteria.

However, the plot is also important for Carroll. Taking the same short story into account, we are presented with a complex discovery plot (a common feature of Lovecraft’s tales). The onset is presented in the form of a first-person narration on the part of the nephew of a professor who did great, but secret, research on the Old Ones. He describes the collection of notes and trinkets that his great-uncle had acquired, and also tells of his death. The narrative continues into the discovery area of the plot, wherein the nephew connects many of the notes and trinkets in a manner most horrifying, implying that something is not as it seems. From there, we get the confirmation in the form of an account written by a sailor who uncovered the madness. This second-hand account, which seems to be driving our guide closer to insanity, involves the confrontation part of the plot, and demonstrates how utterly hopeless it is to challenge an Old One. In many of Lovecraft’s tales, the confirmation stage does involve a descent into madness, but the tale never enters the realm of the fantastic, there is always a strong display of the marvelous at hand. In this tale, and many of Lovecraft’s others, we are given a complex discovery plot.

Since we have the Carroll monster, and the Carroll plot, what is keeping us from having a good Lovecraft-based movie? I posit that it relates to Lovecraft’s penchant for assaulting us with adjectives. What may otherwise read as, “The men sight a stone pillar coming from the sea and, sailing to it, come upon a nightmarish coastline”, becomes in Lovecraft’s tale, “the men sight a great stone pillar sticking out of the sea, and in S. Latitude 47°9', W. Longitude l23°43', come upon a coastline of mingled mud, ooze, and weedy Cyclopean masonry which can be nothing less than the tangible substance of earth's supreme terror - the nightmare corpse-city of R'lyeh, that was built in measureless aeons behind history by the vast, loathsome shapes that seeped down from the dark stars.. Furthermore, Lovecraft presents us with scenes that truly defy visual interpretation, “. . . Johansen swears [one of his comrades] was swallowed up by an angle of masonry which shouldn't have been there; an angle which was acute, but behaved as if it were obtuse.” Passages like these are meant to overwhelm our senses with something that can hardly be imagined. In our vain attempts to visualize such images, we become fearful at the prospect that they are utterly unnatural. To commit an image to the silver screen automatically removes this quality from our mind, for if it is seen, than it can easily be described in ways that do not defy what is natural. So if one were to impose a set image onto Lovecraft’s “monsters”, they would lose their instantly maddening visages. If there were indeed some way to produce the monsters and environs on screen, then the plot should have no problem being transformed to suit the medium. After all, there are many other films with successful complex discovery plots, so Lovecraft’s plots should be able to make the step to film as well.

The plots of Lovecraft’s more well-known pieces of weird fiction would translate nicely onto the screen, but the unnerving scenes that come with them can only be viewed in the mind. Attempts to render them on screen serve to undo the horror found within and leave us only with more failed attempts at producing a successfully Lovecraftian film.

Heeeere's JOHNNY!

Stephen King’s horror novel, turned movie in 1980, "The Shining" tells the story of the Torrance family; Jack Torrance, and his wife and son, Wendy and Danny Torrance, as they relocate to the Overlook Hotel during the winter season. Upon taking a job as the Overlook’s caretaker, Jack Torrance and family take residence in the prestigious mountain-top hotel during the long winter months, as the hotel is closed to the public in fear of isolating weather. Unfortunately, what Jack’s employers forgot to mention is that the Hotel’s permanent residence will be remaining with him and his family during their stay. (Though, how would audiences react to the proverbial note card on the front door reading "Jack, please try not to upset the Ghosts!")
Jack Torrance doesn’t make light of his job at the hotel, a job he was warned was not easy. Jack discovers through the manager prior to his acceptance that previous caretakers have also been vigilant in their duties, to the point of extremes. The previous caretaker, Charles Grady, went mad during this tenure and brutally murdered his wife and two daughters. The manager of the Overlook warns Jack of the dangers of cabin fever; nevertheless, he accepts the job eagerly. Before the final close of the hotel, Danny Torrance meets with the hotel’s friendly head chef, Dick Hollorann, a man who is blessed with the same supernatural gift that he sees in young Danny. Dick calls this gift ‘the shining’. Referring to the power of telepathy, Dick is able to mentally speak to Danny and also warn him that his power will allow him to perceive things that normal people cannot, particularly, with horrible occurrences that have "left a trace" behind. It is later discovered that the ghostly residence of the Overlook Hotel have in one form or another all met a terrible end.
Within a short time following the family’s move to the hotel, strange occurrences begin to take place. Most notably, however is the lose of sanity from Jack as the days pass slowly. As a recovering alcoholic, Jack finds is new job stressful and often covets the drink that used to bring his mind at ease. He is also tries to set time aside for a new career in writing. One day while wondering the halls of the Overlook, Danny comes across the room 237. Having been warned by Dick that something horrible had happened in the room, he was told to stay out. However, he inevitably chooses not to follow that advice. The next scene shows Danny walking toward his parents with scratches and bruise marks over his body. Having been accused by Danny’s mother for the incident, Jack goes to the room to investigate. He finds a woman in the bathroom, and rising from the tube, Jack embraces her nude body. In a terrifying scene, Jack discovers from the reflection in the bathroom window that the woman is actually old…and dead. Terrified, he flees from the room.
The strange occurrences do not end there. Danny routinely sees terrible imagery and strange ghostly figures of the dead residence of the Overlook. Meanwhile, Jack seems to dwell deeper and deeper into insanity. Jack is eventually encouraged by the ghostly residence to attack Danny and his mother. In one of the most unforgettable scenes, Jack chases Wendy and Danny to their rooms in the hotel, where he tries to break through the bathroom door so he can kill them with an axe. The chase continues outside, as the ghost become visible as if watching the spectacle. Danny inevitably looses Jack in the on-sight maze in the hotel gardens, and Jack freezes to death in the winter storm.
The last scene shows a picture of a party on the hotel walls with Jack at the center and the date reading 1921. The suggested imagery is that evil is timeless and the ghost of the hotel are satisfied with this particular good time (the attempted killing of Jack’s family by his own hand. The supernatural elements of this film cannot be limited to one character, they all shared the burden of the hotel’s evil inhabitance, making for a brilliant horror film.

Who Needs Monsters !

When we get ready to watch a horror
movie, I expect to be horrified. I prefer
to be scared senseless! For me I, have high expectations
of a horror film. I need the suspense, blood,violence and
all. Not necessarily a monster but someone who is comp-
letely fearless and psycho. If one has these qualities for me
in a scaryor horror film then the movie will be great. It
provides me with a feeling,that someone could really do this...
it is possible.... .right? Then you will get theurge to look
over your shoulder when you are alone and that is when
you know you are horrified .

One of the movies that proves that
a monster is not needed is the movie Scream
. The psycho killer first starts off as a nice guy,
who invites the girl to friendly conversation ,then
wants her to play game. Friendly conversations turn
into a small city mass murder. This movie are more
realistic then any monster you could imagine.
A person committing this of crime in the way he did
was very horrifying. In the sense that this could
happen but what are the possibilities that I really can.
Movies that are made in realistic, contemporary setting
are more horrifying, then in a realistic setting with a
disgusting monsters. Everyone knows that monsters
do not exist. Also, knowing that you or someone you
know can come across a person this psychotic.

Typically these scenerios don't happen day ...but its

possible and that is why we are scared. I also

think when we see that someone else is afraid

of another person then that makesus afraid of

people even more, justbecause we know people are

more threatning and dangerousthan a monster that

never exists.In this day and age with all different

technology and much more adults raise theirchild-

ren, differently as well. I dont believe that a monster

can be created to be more scarrier, more threatning

or more decieving as a person. There has been so many

other movies where the psycho killer is friends with

the person he's going to killnext . So in closure humans,

at least psycho ones are scarrier by far.

A Foggy Nightmare

Imagine, it is a beuatiful, clear night without a cloud in the sky. We are listening to an old fisherman recounting the story of the history of the town. He says he has time for this one last story seeing as it was 11:55 PM. At 12:00 AM, 100 years prior, the fog rolled in. A clipper ship, seeing a camp fire on land, directed the ship toward it. They ran into treacherous rocks and the ship, The Elizabeth Dane, sunk taking its crew with it. The conspiritors who built the fire, plundered the gold from the ship and founded Antonio Bay. We are given the background of the story right at the beginning and immediately have a sense of unease.

The movie then leads into many strange events that are happening all over town. All of the payphones ring at the same time, jars break in the supermarket and everything starts to shake, lights mysteriously turn on, a gas pump falls and starts to pump gas, bells ring, cars lifted up in the shop like someone was doing work on the bottom, car alarms go off at the same time, TV turns on by itself and a chair moves on its own. Nick picks up a hitchhiker named Elizabeth and as they are driving, the car windows break without being hit by anything. The movie then cuts to a scene where three men are on a trawler drinking. They see the fog coming toward them and decide they need to dock the boat and go home. They notice that in the fog, there is a large ship which pulls up right next to them. The trollers generator blows and ghosts board the ship killing the three men. The fog rolls away, back the way it came which was against the wind. The movie shows one final scene from that night where Nick and Elizabeth are laying in bed and there is a mysterious knock on the door. Nick gets up to see who it is and he sees a hook. The clock behind him strikes 1:00 and the hook raises up and swings down and as this happens, the clock behind Nick breaks.

With these odd occurences, we are starting to feel art-horror. We don't know for sure what is going on or why. This lays the ground for the rest of the attacks on the people from Antonio Bay. We are unsure of the reason for the attacks at first, but we learn what really happened 100 years prior. The crew of the Elizabeth Dane were lepers. The towns people didn't want to have a community of lepers living anywhere near them so 6 conspirators formed the plan. Father Malone, the local minister, finds the diary of his grandfather who was also the town's minister and one of the six conspirators. The fog has come back to claim six lives which are taken as substitutes for the six conspirators. The rest of the movie shows us how Nick, Elizabeth, Father Malone, and Stevie, the towns local radio voice, solve this mystery of the fog.

I was highly disappointed with this film. It seemed to use alot of "cheap" scare tactics. It was unfortunate that we heard the story of what happened right at the beginning because it is pretty much giving away what is going to happen. After the first scene, I knew ghosts from the ship were going to come back and kill people from the town. Surprise surprise. There was no other plot to the story. I found myself thinking survival of the fittest as I was watching this movie because there were so many stupid things the people did. However, I will say that the element of suspense was there throughout most of the movie. Even though we knew who the monsters where and why they were there, we still wondered who was going to die and who would live. At the end of the movie, the ghosts had taken six lives, Father Malone being the last one, and the ghosts seemed content. The fog disappeared and everyone felt safe again.

All in all, the plot of The Fog could have been more interesting. The plot was the one thing that turned me away from enjoying this movie. I may have been scared a few times because I am a jumpy person, but mainly the movie was very predictable. I hope the remake made a few changes to give the story more of an interesting plot, but I doubt there was anything one could do to make the story line any better.

The Unknown

In the Haunting there was a question posed to Luke by the doctor and it pertained to someone seeing a lamp moving but, not seeing any visible matter moving it? Luke believed that nothing had moved the lamp but, the Doctor went on to explain that nothing could not have moved the lamp and that there was a force that could move this lamp even if at the time people did not understand this force. The Doctor goes on to explain the preternatural theory that states all supernatural forces can eventually be explained by science if not in ones lifetime then, eventually in another’s. All supernatural can be explained. The question of the lamp and the stated theory put questions on the understanding of the supernatural in horror movies and the way in which we may classify horror movies. What is the supernatural? Is the supernatural still the supernatural if it can be explained by science in any time? Is Carrols definition that the supernatural in horror movies is simply anything that can’t be explained by modern science, complete? How far would something have to be known in order for it not to be considered supernatural? Can the supernatural be in varying degrees? Is something still supernatural if a part of it can be explained by science but, the rest of it can’t be? Would the lamp that moved still be supernatural in a horror movie if scientist could explain that a force did move the lamp and that this force was natural? No, this lamp would not be supernatural according to Carroll and rightly so, but there is a gray area that appears when put into context of a so called horror movie. What if this same natural force knocks over all the lamps in the house at the same time and this house in particular has had a long history of a particular method of suicide carried out by every different owner that has occupied this house. Would the action of these lamps being knocked over be the supernatural in a horror movie? Carroll would say that no this is not the supernatural of horror movies yet but, rather it is in the fantastic realm. I would say yes though, that this is the supernatural in horror movies because there is still the unknown in why people would kill themselves in a particular method. This force seemingly explained by Science is not fully explained. There doesn’t have to be definitive proof to cause even the same art horror that carol claims to be elicited from his definition of art horror. The unknown even without a confirmation stage still creates art-horror through the cognitive evaluative which can be present without a monster. The unproven which cause hesitation can alone cause art horror. The supernatural which cause most art horror is due to the unknown lingering questions because the unknown is the supernatural present in horror movies.
In very early cultures forces of nature and phenomenon’s in nature were given personifications with harmful events such as drought being given a God that is unnatural and to whatever culture disgusting. Things such as rainfall were given beautiful Goddess’s. Why is it that these cultures gave harmful forces disgusting and unnatural Gods? The reason is because these types of things are unknown to us and are perceived of as a threat. Something is disgusting and seemingly unnatural because we do not understand why a thing would be created that would look so different than anything we are used to seeing. This thing’s actions as well come into question because we have no basis to gauge where this thing comes from, how this thing will act and what is the intention or will of this thing. We cannot understand these things well because most of our understanding from the world (very present in primitive times still present just not in the same way or intensity) comes from the projection we have of ourselves that we put on the world. I know how this thing will act because he looks like me. This thing’s intentions and wants are completely separate from mine because he looks totally different than me. This thing must be totally opposite from me because his origin is different from mine so it is an origin I do not understand. These statements can be flipped around and still be true such as this person thinks totally different from me so he must not be from the same place. These thoughts are not always fully conscious though because the way in which we gain knowledge is not always conscious. The unknown is not only restricted to being present in things but, also events and practices. Practices for one reason or the other such as origin can have the same affects of being unknown and also being unknown and threatening in that it threatens ideas in which we feel our society stands on and without these ideas would be a crumbling of society and a crumbling of our safety due to a belief that our safety is intact because of that specific society. The unknown then does change with changes all around us. This includes changes in things such as religion and science which are an attempt to make the world more known to us and in a lot of cases control the world around us. We cannot control something that we know exist but is still in many ways unknown to us. The unknown for a person can rest on the three pillars of sociology. When, where, and to whom you were born to. A bump in the night and what I would be fearing as someone in America in 2007 being a white middle class kid would be totally different than what a kid born in 750 b.c. in Greece to an upper-class family would be scarred of when hearing a bump in the night. Either way the specific fears that elicit Carrols emotions of art horror are due to the unknown which is one of the most basic reasons why people fear for their lives and safety.
Carroll’s assumption is wrong in that we must see the monster to be horrified but, this is wrong because the presence of the supernatural is still believed by the audience to be there even if there hasn’t been the definite confirmation scene. Other things such as atmosphere can take care of that. In some cases the confirmation scene would make the thing more known to the viewer which would be the first step to understanding it or understanding how safety can be acquired.